I'm opposed, but not strongly. I see no need to tinker. The only use I see is when a guy like Crosby is on the DTD because the Pens don't need the roster spot yet he misses numerous days. For the most part, the DTD guys miss under 2 and sometimes less than a full game. It just results in needless roster churning then.

I will never support a NA spot, for what it's worth, which I thought this would include. In a keeper league, that allows freerolling on guys like Radulov, Thomas and the KHL gang.

There's no way to police it, but I'd support the ir+ spot if you could only replace the player with a rookie eligible player that's not on your roster. So if idoit wasn't rostering mackinnon and he had a player go dtd, he could use the ir+ to put mackinnon on his roster. Just a thought, but it would require effort to police it.

Thats pretty much why I don't like it. It would require too much policing. I actually have 2 rookie goalies playing in the NHL right now. Maybe if i'm lucky they can both Bernier their way off my team.

As an FYI, if anyone is interested in keeping track of all their rookies (and maybe you figured this out already).Yahoo added this easy to find "Watch List" tab right on your main team page. So, I flagged all my rookies in the UFA lists and they all show up there. Even those currently unavailable. And, Yahoo maintains your watchlist across seasons - at least it has for me so far - so you don't have to constantly update that every year.

bhaw wrote:There's no way to police it, but I'd support the ir+ spot if you could only replace the player with a rookie eligible player that's not on your roster. So if idoit wasn't rostering mackinnon and he had a player go dtd, he could use the ir+ to put mackinnon on his roster. Just a thought, but it would require effort to police it.

That is an interesting thought. Not sure how hard it would be to police though since the transaction should show up on the league page.